COP21: The ‘battle for interpretation’

Matthew Farrow
18 December 2015

Twitter FacebookLinkedIn

Print

Topics 

Environment

Matthew Farrow writes on the Paris climate talks.

I’m writing this just after the start of the COP21 summit – the Paris climate change talks (COP stands for Conference of the Parties, ie, the Parties to the Kyoto Treaty). By the time you read this, the Summit will have ended, and while I don’t know what the precise outcome will be, I’m pretty sure that the details will be obscured by the ‘battle for interpretation’. 

This is because for many individuals and stakeholders, whether on the green side of the argument or the climate-sceptic side, persuading the public and the media what to think of COP21 will be almost as important as what is actually decided.

In the year leading up to COP21, there has been much more optimism from neutral commentators as to the prospects for a good result. 

"In terms of the lack of a legally binding treaty, I think this is inevitable. We know from the problems with the Kyoto Treaty that in practice it is almost impossible to have meaningful sanctions on countries that don’t achieve these sorts of targets."

This optimism is based on three factors:

• The climate science around the risk of ‘dangerous climate change’ has broadly consolidated in recent years
• The cost of low-carbon technologies such as solar has fallen dramatically 
• Countries are more willing to set out national carbon reduction goals

In contrast critics of the COP process, such as Nigel Lawson’s Global Warning Foundation, make their attack based on several arguments.

First, they point out that adding up INDCs (Intended Nationally Determined Contributions) still does not cut global emissions enough to keep the world on a trajectory to below 2 degrees of warming. Second, they argue that because Paris will not result in a binding international treaty, there is no way to enforce the INDC’s. Third, they argue that the COP process has just become a series of expensive, self perpetuating jamborees.

On balance, I think the optimistic view is the more accurate one. After the widespread dismay at the failure of the 2009 Copenhagen COP talks, getting a deal in Paris would give a real boost to the low carbon movement. I also expect that the final agreement will include some form of review process to encourage countries to raise their targets over time.

"While a broadly encouraging agreement is expected, the days after the Summit concludes will see a concerted attempt by various stakeholders to portray the talks as either a huge breakthrough or a colossal failure"

In terms of the lack of a legally binding treaty, I think this is inevitable. We know from the problems with the Kyoto Treaty that in practice it is almost impossible to have meaningful sanctions on countries that don’t achieve these sorts of targets. In the end, a combination of public and peer pressure, self-interest and a desire to protect national reputations has to do the job. And this is why the scale and razzmatazz of COP21 is justified. No country wants to have its leader making very public pledges on climate change and then to be seen to be failing to live up to this. Equally any agreement must cover the vast majority of emitters. So the grand public nature of the talks, the attendance of world leaders, and the huge number of countries involved, is essential. 

What will be the long term impact of COP21? Not knowing what final agreement will be reached, its hard to be sure, but I do think that there is a good chance that a deal will be done which gives further momentum to low carbon investment and activity, and of course this will have big implications for infrastructure. There is also a possibility that we will see real progress towards mobilising the $100bn a year of climate finance which was the figure agreed in Copenhagen as being the scale of financial flows needed by 2020 to really start delivery of a low carbon revolution. There has already been a lot of debate in Paris as to how much has now been pledged by richer countries (the OECD says over $50bn, others say much less), it is clear the finance issue is getting the attention it deserves.

So while a broadly encouraging agreement is expected, the days after the Summit concludes will see a concerted attempt by various stakeholders to portray the talks as either a huge breakthrough or a colossal failure. The business community needs to be aware of this, and focus on the real implications for infrastructure, investment and markets. 

Matthew Farrow is director general of the Environmental Industries Commission, the leading trade body for environmental firms.
www.eic-uk.co.uk